Page 4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, October 2, 1990
hie IR'0* a a
it Rdifan al
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
_ PB2A F AN j> 'QLi vJ> Winer) M- c-.ot1eS 5-1D .)rodent crcv~rS
Follow me gLAyS. X t6s*nK
jf5 +6is way.
N Q, Look out yo'r)
NOAH FINKEL
Editor in Chief
DAVID SCHWARTZ
Opinion Editor
Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. All other cartoons,
signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily.
Alcohol policy.
'U' should not exceed Bush's federal mandate
/1
wha~t a.i
+, going havc*. $ pictK (
fU? bcau e e re
Urv Brsn. tdk i^ ' f? ao r q1 l~ i a e4 d
Lb~* Uo ~
0
YESTERDAY, THE UNIVERSITY IM-
plemented a comprehensive policy that
will deal with alcohol and illicit drug
use on campus. This action is a result
of President Bush's National Drug
Policy, which ordered publicly funded
universities to formulate rules on drug
'and alcohol use. Those public univer-
sities not complying with the federal
legislation would be in danger of losing
all forms of federal funding.
Though the new University policy
-went into effect yesterday, it has not
yet been released for review to students
f or the public. Its details are unclear,
L since University officials won't discuss
the specifics of the policy. According
to Vice President for Student Services
Mary Ann Swain, the policy will be
published sometime later this month.
Despite the inability of students to
;aquire specifics about a document
which governs their activity, rumors
emanating from the Fleming Building
.contend that the University policy will
"xn much broader than'what is required
by Bush's federal directive.
k According to the mandate, the Uni-
yersity must "impose disciplinary
sanctions consistent with local, State,
and Federal law, up to and including
expulsion, employment termination,
and possible referral for criminal pros-
cution." Though this policy severely
niifringes students' rights by subjecting
them to sanctions both by the Univer-
sity and the state and federal courts, the
University will likely go beyond the
bare minimum of the federal mandate.
*CP.
44
ThIS 1 YOUR PAIN
0KI M1 r.. Gk Ad
The directive suggests that all uni-
versities prohibit the "unlawful pos-
session, use, or distribution of illicit
drugs and alcohol by students and em-
ployees on its property or as part of its
activities." Unfortunately, students
should remain concerned that the Uni-
versity will extend its policy to cover
off-campus events, in keeping with its
goal of implementing a comprehensive
code of student non-academic conduct.
U..
Additionally, it is apparent that the
federal government is trying to impose
its rules by threatening to withhold
money. This blackmail infringes upon
the traditional autonomy of most public
institutions. Similar heavy-handed tac-
tics have long been applied to Pell
Grant recipients, who have been forced
to promise certain behavior in order to
receive their funding.
Students should also be wary of
how the administration can use this
mandate to its own advantage. Its pol-
icy amounts to a form of non-academic
regulation, which the administration
has been trying to implement for along
time. Combined with the newly depu-
tized campus police force, this will give
the University a large amount of power
to regulate students' private lives.
The administration should publicly
explain how they plan to interpret the
federal guidelines. They should be
codified with no more breadth than is
specified, and the University should
not be permitted to utilize this policy as
a mechanism for inappropriate control.
as
Mandatory course proposals miss the point
By Corey Dolgon, Tracy Ore
and Matthew Schultz
The LSA faculty is currently consider-
ing proposals for a "diversity requirement"
and will have an open forum on the matter
Oct. 2. As a group committed to both un-
dergraduate teaching and social justice,
TAs for Social Change (TASC) believes it
is important to challenge the assumptions
behind these proposals.
There are four proposals before the fac-
ulty. Though their particulars vary, they
all lack the force and commitment requi-
site for an effective course on racism and
related forms of oppression.
The very name of the proposed require-
ment denies the full implications of a re-
sponsible treatment of oppression. This
course was originally part of the student
demands during the formation of UCAR
(United Coalition Against Racism) in
1987 following serious incidents of racism
here on campus.
Just as another demand - for the
recognition of Martin Luther King Jr.'s
birthday - was watered-down to
"Diversity Day," the course on racism has
become a course on "diversity."
The term diversity masks the history
and contemporary reality of oppression and
pretends that the struggles of oppressed
peoples for justice can be contained and
explained by a formless focus on the value
of difference.
In a similar semantic cop-out, all of
the course proposals refer to the problem
of "intolerance," a term which hardly
Dolgon, Ore and Schultz are members of
TAs for Social Change (TASC) and were
empowered to write this statement on be-
half of the group. TASC is an organization
of graduate students at the University.
seems to cover the scope of racism in
U.S. history. To discuss the slave trade or
lynching as manifestations of "intol-
erance" is a gross distortion of their
meaning and magnitude.
The timidity in the wording of these
proposals stems from the fact that the col-
lege, while paying lip service to the
struggle against racism, has yet to make
any meaningful commitment to this ef-
fort.
The college seems untroubled, in fact
proud, that the proposed course continues
this trend. In a publication for the faculty
about the proposed diversity requirement,
the dean's office says in no uncertain terms
that the course "would not require the hir-
ing of new faculty" and "would not require
the creation of new courses."
The course must be taught by
people trained in the study of these
subjects or whose background is
augmented by university-sponsored faculty
workshops prior to teaching the course.
The decision about which courses
meet the requirement must be made by a
board consisting of faculty and students
with relevant experience. This board mustl
have significant representation by people
of color, women, and lesbians, gays and
bisexuals.
The current proposals do not provide
for a serious or intellectually engaged
analysis of the courses meeting the
"diversity" requirement. They also fail to
require or even encourage increased faculty
attention to the complexity and subtlety of
the problems of racism and oppression.
Through the current proposals, the college attempts to
jump on the bandwagon of pluralism and
multiculturalism without making any real commitment
in the bottom-line terms of allocating resources.
In other words, nothing is going to
change in terms of what is taught or who
teaches it; the university will simply call
the same curricular offerings by a new
name.
We believe that any required course
which will address racism and oppression
in a productive and sophisticated way must
include the following three elements,
which none of the existing proposals con-
tains:
N The course must address not only
racial oppression but also other forms of
oppression including those based on gen-
der, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion,
and class.
Through the current proposals, the col-
lege attempts to jump on the bandwagon
of pluralism and multiculturalism without
making any real commitment in the both
tom-line terms of allocating resources.
Yet because the required course will ad-
dress, and presumably condemn, "intol-
erance," the college hopes to deflect any*
criticism of its response to the problem of
racism.
Because we find this strategy incompat-
ible with the original impetus for a course
on racism, we as activists and scholars op-
pose the diversity requirement and wil
continue to work for a substantive curricu-
lar treatment of racism and other forms of
oppression.
e QUE'SIiONS?
YEAR, YOU
ANA EAT TATEC?
%JOHED DID) THE. f&E '
TOy MTE OJR E.A Y ?
FS ?OPLE A TOP
SATO PCZR Y KtLL.,~-O
CmACjcICKM
McGlothlin has a history of interfering w
0
-*
Ks'
4,
ports deficit
To the Daily:
It is eight years too late, but I am ec-
static about the high visibility given the
recent front page editorial identifying
Nancy McGlothlin as a thorn in the Build-
ing for Student Publications.
As Daily Librarian when McGlothlin
initially walked into 420 Maynard, I real-
ized quickly that she had not learned that
in order for people to grasp responsibility,
they need to be given responsibility. Her
dictatorial demeanor, rules and regulations
did nothing to raise morale and encouraged
discouragement.
McGlothlin took responsibility away
from hard working, intelligent students
who were far more capable and experienced
in running the daily activities of the paper.
Evidently, this has not changed.
The Daily is one of the few places on
campus where students can test their
wings publicly outside of the Ivory
Tower. It is important that all student
publications have absolute editorial free-
dom as well as maintaining an atmosphere
of a vocational training ground, giving
students control to the greatest extent pos-
sible.
I applaud and join Rebecca Cox in her
decision to withhold any contributions to
the University until Nancy McGlothlin is
removed from the Board. I hope that the
One Hundredth Year Celebration will col-
lectively support this decision as well.
Bonnie H. Foley
dent Publications, I had many opportuni-
ties to interface with McGlothlin.
While she was a very efficient, compe-
tent person, I am amazed to learn that she.
is now so well-organized that she can ac-i
complish the extensive, malicious over-
sight and aggravation you can charge
against her, "though she generally works
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m."
Your justifications for slandering Mc-
Glothlin and demanding her removal were
weak. For example, McGlothlin's pres-
ence near the printer for several years
threatens article content. I chuckled, be-
cause, frankly, the Daily has not even had
the printers for very long.
As I sorted through the charges, I real-
ized that the bottom line for your demands
is financial freedom, not editorial freedom.
You do not want anyone to exercise over-
sight of the Daily's finances.
The entire tone of your articles are
whiny and pouting. It sounded much like a
teenager whose father won't give her the
family car so she sulks and tells anyone
who will listen how mean he is. Is it re-
sponsible journalism to attribute motives
to individuals? Last time I checked, re-
sponsible journalism meant reporting the
facts.
Furthermore, Rebecca Cox shared my
tenure at the Daily and her interpretation
of history is not reliable. I suggest you
check with other sources.
Gloria Sanak
10001lmn rI i l ,atfia,~tc
.Athletic Department faces some tough choices
ith Daily editors
been brewing for many years, and this is
not the first time that the editors of the
Daily and the other student publications
have unanimously appealed to the Board of
Student Publications to remove McGloth-
lin from their midst.
THE UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC DE--
partment announced last week that it
Would record its second-consecutive
4 deficit during the 1990-91 school year.
As the department addresses the issue,
it should look for ways to solve the
problem without University assistance
qr cuts in minor programs.
: The Athletic Department has enjoyed
more financial independence than any
other University department. The new
Center of Champions, named for for-
mer football coach Bo Schembechler,
is the latest symbol of the department's
v fundraising capabilities. After soliciting
sports, and this should not happen.
Men's and women's non-revenue
sports - all the teams but football and
men's basketball - would undoubt-
edly be the most vulnerable to fiscal
belt-tightening.
These teams showcase the same
skill, dedication, and determination as
the football and basketball teams, and
all attempts should be made to retain
them. Smaller sports do not generate
millions of dollars from TV contracts
and gate receipts, yet their financial li-
ability does not diminish their impor-
tance.
In my 10 months as a graduate student
representative to the Board (1989-90), I
watched McGlothlin and Board Chair Am-
non Rosenthal lie, cheat, violate regental
by-laws, falsify documents - finally they
simply cancelled most of their meetings
for the year - all in an effort to deny stu-
dent representation on the Board. Then
they stacked the supposedly "independent"
Board with professors and others who were
known for their hostility to the Daily.
Now that the Daily has taken its case
to the public, I hope it is prepared to per-
sist in these efforts. The Board has shown
that it does not shame easily, and has few
scruples. And Duderstadt can be expected
to back these petty tyrants who have
served him so well.
At its best, the Board is nothing more
than a parasitic excrescence (as evidenced
by McGlothlin's $44,500 salary). At
worst, it is a monster seeking to return to
its nefarious and not-to-distant past, when
it formally approved or disapproved the
Daily's editors.
For better or worse, the student press is
one of the last refuges of editorial freedom
in a society dominated by corporate-con-
i
I-